I don't wan'na watch,but I have to.It's the only Seltz-berg movie I haven't seen,I need to so I can officially call them the worst filmmakers.Even if I like the movie,it would be their only good movie,so I wouldn't be wrong.

I don't wan'na watch,but I have to.It's the only Seltz-berg movie I haven't seen,I need to so I can officially call them the worst filmmakers.Even if I like the movie,it would be their only good movie,so I wouldn't be wrong.

Be honest:Is this better or worse than the others?

Avoid this movie as it were the AIDS virus! It is the worse of the worse! It has Kim Kardashian in it, need I say more!?

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Now, you read that review and you tell me if this is a movie worth paying money to see and that "liking" it proves once and for all that MWG has no right to tell us that we at the Razzies forums don't know what we're talking about when it comes from telling a good movie from a bad one.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

I don't need to read it to know that is isn't worth payin'money.I never said it was.In fact,if you read my first post,you'll see that my reasons don't make me "sound" very excited.

I'm not sure when Moviewizguy said that.Maybe in another forum?Well,if he did,he's wrong.Although I sometimes disagree with the Razzies and members in certain aspects,they generally show movies considered bad.

I'm not sure when Moviewizguy said that.Maybe in another forum?Well,if he did,he's wrong.Although I sometimes disagree with the Razzies and members in certain aspects,they generally show movies considered bad.

If you read a lot of his posts, he has called people "morons" and "idiots" for not agreeing with his opinion, which is sad. I understand he may think he's just providing a difference of opinion, but it's more like a difference in an out-look of movies and life in genernal. To me, at least, he seems to view movies with a child-like, uncritical eye, in which all movies start at 10 and are good until they are proven to suck, and that is why he ends up giving them ratings of nothing below 6 and up. That's not how movies work and it's not how life works. Everything starts with a clean slate, in other words, movies start at 0 and they have to be proven good in order to reach that 6 or higher, and that is where MWG is flawed.

Another thing with the Razzies is how we choose what is Razzies worthy, and they usually aim for people who have past records with bad movies. I know you and MWG love, love, love, LOVE M. Night Shy, but even you have admitted, his record in filmmaking is not spotless. I know you and MWG might look at his movies with that child-like, uncritical eyes, but to us (as well as many other critics and movie goers), he's must up one time too many and is not the great talent that everyone thought he would be. I'm just saying.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

If you read a lot of his posts, he has called people "morons" and "idiots" for not agreeing with his opinion, which is sad.

Hypocrite.

To me, at least, he seems to view movies with a child-like, uncritical eye, in which all movies start at 10 and are good until they are proven to suck, and that is why he ends up giving them ratings of nothing below 6 and up. That's not how movies work and it's not how life works. Everything starts with a clean slate, in other words, movies start at 0 and they have to be proven good in order to reach that 6 or higher, and that is where MWG is flawed.

You're wrong with that interpretation but it's a nice theory. I'll explain my secret once and for all: When I go in seeing a bad movie (in other words, a movie with generally negative reviews/word of mouth), I set my expectations so low it would reach Hell (eh, I don't know a better metaphor). This is why when I watch these films, it ends up surpassing my super low expectations. The same goes for good films. If films are hailed as masterpieces, I set my expectations just like that: As a masterpiece. You know 2001: A Space Odyssey? I freaking hated that film. I hated, hated, hated the movie so much because it's ridiculous to see people praising a film with images that are shown with classical music in the background.

But most of the times, I usually end up liking good films, although I don't consider them masterpieces. However, it's bad for your health to be so negative all of the time. It's proven if you're happy, it's good for your body so me liking 96% of every film I watch isn't such a bad thing. I'd hate to be the person who criticize every movie they see.

Another thing with the Razzies is how we choose what is Razzies worthy, and they usually aim for people who have past records with bad movies. I know you and MWG love, love, love, LOVE M. Night Shy, but even you have admitted, his record in filmmaking is not spotless.

Moviewizguy,the thing is of course there's nothing wrong if you like "bad" movies and viceversa,but you can't consider yourself an expert and you can't review movies.You defend a lot of "bad" movies,but not by sayin'"I like it,but that's my opinion".You say things like "It's good".

B.H.B.,you do tend to hate and not dislike movies.You name says it all.

As for Shyamalan,he's not a masterpiece maker,but he's also not bad.He has made 2 failures,2 semi-failures,1 semi-hit,2 hits and 1 potential classic.In R.T.,he has an exact 50%,which makes him average,not bad.

Moviewizguy,the thing is of course there's nothing wrong if you like "bad" movies and viceversa,but you can't consider yourself an expert and you can't review movies.You defend a lot of "bad" movies,but not by sayin'"I like it,but that's my opinion".You say things like "It's good".

No, I don't. When any person say their opinion, it's IMPLIED that it's their opinion. I say it if I have to but I don't say it all of the time because I do get tired saying, "in my opinion" when it's already implied.

I've never called you an idiot or moron, I just said you don't make for a reliable critic because you seem to defend one too many bad movies and your mind-set on rating movies is not the same as everyone else who posts here. We're very critical about what a good movies, and as I said, you're barely critical at all.

You're wrong with that interpretation but it's a nice theory. I'll explain my secret once and for all: When I go in seeing a bad movie (in other words, a movie with generally negative reviews/word of mouth), I set my expectations so low it would reach Hell (eh, I don't know a better metaphor). This is why when I watch these films, it ends up surpassing my super low expectations. The same goes for good films. If films are hailed as masterpieces, I set my expectations just like that: As a masterpiece. You know 2001: A Space Odyssey? I freaking hated that film. I hated, hated, hated the movie so much because it's ridiculous to see people praising a film with images that are shown with classical music in the background.

You go in with low expectations, but come out with ratings of 6 or higher? That comes across to me that you are easily taken, or you're either not seeing something that everyone else did. As for "2001", I can understand why someone wouldn't like it, it's far from the tradition sci-fi movies like "Star Wars", "Star Trek", and other space opera adventures.

But most of the times, I usually end up liking good films, although I don't consider them masterpieces. However, it's bad for your health to be so negative all of the time. It's proven if you're happy, it's good for your body so me liking 96% of every film I watch isn't such a bad thing. I'd hate to be the person who criticize every movie they see.

I'm not mad, I just don't care for the current product that Hollywood puts out, so I stay away from going to theaters.

I never said every film he made were masterpieces.

But yet, you'll defend all of them regardless of how good or bad it was. To you, they are all good and any one who says otherwise is either wrong in their opinion, or didn't get the message of the movie. Or it could be Mister M. Night needs to stop writing.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

But yet, you'll defend all of them regardless of how good or bad it was. To you, they are all good and any one who says otherwise is either wrong in their opinion, or didn't get the message of the movie. Or it could be Mister M. Night needs to stop writing.

I can understand why people didn't like The Happening and won't attack them for their opinion. I never attack people because of their opinions.

I can understand why people didn't like The Happening and won't attack them for their opinion. I never attack people because of their opinions.

Well, I'm not attacking you for liking him. I'm just pointing out that you place him in high standards, even though he has only met those standards half way. As I said, you and Vits might consider him to be on top of his game at like 70% or 80%, but for most critics and audiences, he's more like at 40% or 50% right now.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum